President Focuses on Key Concerns in Two Ordinances Sent by Government

President Ram Chandra Paudel has sought legal advice concerning two of the seven ordinances sent by the government, specifically those regarding the Constitutional Council and the cancellation of political appointments. Paudel had previously returned the ordinance on the Constitutional Council to Parliament, citing a violation of the constitutional principle that decisions must be made by majority vote. Legal experts have recommended that consultations be held with the Prime Minister and that the ordinance be reconsidered before being introduced during a parliamentary recess. Kathmandu, 17 Baisakh — Amidst the government’s submission of multiple ordinances for approval simultaneously, the President has consulted constitutional and legal experts. His primary concerns lie with the ordinances related to the Constitutional Council and the annulment of political appointments.

The President’s constitutional role does not permit him to routinely withhold the executive’s constitutionally compliant recommendations. However, if constitutional or legal obstacles arise, he is empowered to return the draft to the government for reconsideration. Hence, faced with the submission of numerous ordinances at once, he sought legal counsel. Earlier today, Himalyansh reported that the President had already issued ordinances concerning cooperatives and public procurement but was seeking legal opinions about the impact of the ordinances that abolish the Constitutional Council and political appointments. Legal advisors present in the discussion noted that President Paudel’s chief concern was with the ordinance on the Constitutional Council, followed by the ordinance concerning political appointment cancellations. He indicated no intention to block other ordinances but still requested advice. “I had previously returned the bill with a message regarding the Constitutional Council; more recently, I also returned an ordinance presented by the interim government,” the President stated. “Having returned such matters twice, it is necessary to consider whether to revise the previous stance.” Last year, in Shrawan, the then Parliament passed a bill that the President opposed and returned to the House of Representatives.

At that time, he pointed out that the constitutional norm requiring decisions to be made by majority vote was violated. According to Article 284 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Council comprises six members. The bill had allowed decisions by just three members, representing 50% of total members, to constitute a quorum. The President emphasized that in a democracy, decisions must be taken by majority, making the provision inconsistent with the Constitution. When returning the bill, he also elaborated on the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances. He stressed that the bill contravened constitutional norms of unanimity and proper recommendation procedures. The requirement for decisions to be made by a majority of total members was a point he underscored repeatedly. “The provision allowing decisions with a chair and half the members present empowers a minority, so reconsideration is necessary,” he had remarked.

Alongside the Constitutional Council bill rejected by Parliament, the ordinance proposed by the Sushila Karki-led government was submitted to the President, which included provisions for decisions by just three members. The President had refrained from promulgating that ordinance. Currently, with a government holding roughly a two-thirds majority, the ordinance recommending decisions by three out of six Constitutional Council members has posed a challenge for the President, prompting him to seek legal advice. Senior advocates Mahadev Yadav, Badri Bahadur Karki, Purnaman Shakya, Tikaram Bhattarai, and Dr. Bhimarjun Acharya participated in the discussions. Some suggested that the Prime Minister be summoned for consultations on the ordinance before the President shares his perspective.

“Consultations allow the President to communicate his constraints effectively, thereby mitigating any lack of dialogue. Therefore, such communication must commence immediately. Otherwise, written correspondence has also been proposed,” the legal experts explained. Senior advocate Dr. Bhimarjun Acharya suggested that discussions not only with the Prime Minister but also with political parties represented in Parliament would be advisable. Legal professionals emphasized the necessity of dialogue considering the parliamentary session is adjourned while multiple ordinances are being rapidly introduced. Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai stressed that the President must make decisions conducive to the Constitution’s protection when promulgating ordinances.

It has been reported that during consultations with legal experts, a thorough discussion on the Constitutional Council and appointment cancellations did not take place. The President is said to be deeply concerned due to constitutional disputes and the Parliament’s adjourned status, leading him to engage legal scholars for advice. One legal expert commented, “Even amidst the difficult post-people’s movement circumstances, I remain undeterred. I am committed to my constitutional responsibilities, which is why I have called for this consultation.”